Quartermasters can also fight the devils

However, if there is no judgment that the emperor has no authority, attempts to absolve the emperor of responsibility would face greater pressure from the allies and carry a greater moral burden.

Therefore, whether the Japanese emperor has "no say", whether it has nothing to do with "many political decisions in Japan", and whether the "imperial power" of pre-war Japan is only symbolic as the United States believes, are indeed the key to whether the emperor's exemption from responsibility is appropriate.

Moreover, during the trial of Japanese war criminals by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the principle of "official status does not exempt one from responsibility" was established.

That is, the model for determining criminal responsibility involves not only the illegal actions of senior officials, but also the "inactions" of their subordinates for which they are responsible because of their position.

This principle was made clear at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, that is, the theory of "commander responsibility" in criminal law. When a superior commander's subordinates commit international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, if he knows or should know that these crimes are being or are about to be committed and fails to take reasonable and necessary measures to prevent or punish the criminal, the superior commander cannot be exempted from criminal responsibility.

One of the most representative cases in which the International Military Tribunal for the Far East established this principle was the case of Japanese war criminal Yamashita Tomoyuki.

Yamashita Tomoyuki was the supreme commander of the Japanese army in the Philippines and was called the "Tiger of Malaya" by the Japanese army. On October 2, 1945, just one month after the unconditional surrender of the Japanese government, Yamashita Tomoyuki was prosecuted by the Allies and accused of war crimes.

The Allied Forces charge that the Supreme Commander of Japanese Forces in the Philippines, Tomoyuki Yamashita, while in Manila and elsewhere in the Philippine Islands between October 9, 1944 and September 2, 1945, while in command of the armed forces of Japan at war with the United States and its Allies, unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge the duty of a commander to control the actions of the elements of the forces under his command.

As the supreme commander of the Japanese forces in the Philippines, Yamashita Tomoyuki allowed the Japanese army to commit cruel atrocities and other serious crimes against the people of the United States, its allies and neutral countries, especially the Filipino people, thus violating the laws of war.

Unlike other indictments at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Yamashita Tomoyuki was not indicted because of how many people he personally killed or how many people he personally harmed.

Yamashita Tomoyuki was prosecuted because Yamashita Tomoyuki, as the highest commander of the Japanese army in the Philippines, allowed Japanese troops in the Philippines to commit large-scale massacres of the people of the United States and its allies and dependencies, especially the Filipino people, and committed brutal atrocities.

Therefore, the reason why Yamashita Tomoyuki was accused of violating the laws of war was not because he himself did anything illegal, but because he failed to fulfill the duties and obligations that a supreme commander should fulfill.

The case of Yamashita Tomoyuki began to be tried at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East on October 19, 1945. The court heard the testimony of 286 witnesses and accepted 423 documents as physical evidence.

All of these witnesses, testimonies and evidence presented in court indicated that a total of at least more than 500 women were raped by Japanese soldiers in the Philippines, and more than 32,000 Filipino civilians and captured American soldiers were abused and killed.

The trial of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East ended on December 7, 1945, and Yamashita Tomoyuki was sentenced to death by hanging on the grounds that Yamashita Tomoyuki failed to perform the duties of a military commander, control the behavior of his subordinates, and failed to prevent officers and soldiers in his own army from committing cruel atrocities and other crimes.

Since the trial of the Yamashita Tomoyuki case, the principle of commander responsibility has developed significantly in the practice of international criminal law.

Moreover, the Japanese war criminals tried by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East included not only Japanese military commanders, but also the criminal responsibility of Japanese non-military personnel.

When the concept of commander responsibility was first formed, it was a legal basis for holding military commanders personally criminally responsible. However, the trial of Japanese war criminals by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East broke through this limitation. For example, among the Japanese war criminals who were found guilty and executed in accordance with the principle of commander criminal responsibility, there was a non-military commander in Japan, namely, Hirota Koki, the former Prime Minister of the Japanese government.

Hirota Koki was once the 31st Prime Minister of the Japanese government. He served as the Foreign Minister of the Japanese government during the Japanese invasion of China. He was not a military commander in the general sense, and was not responsible for nor commanded the Japanese troops that invading China.

However, Hirota Koki served as the Foreign Minister of the Japanese government during the Nanjing Massacre. Due to his position, when the Japanese army entered the Chinese city of Nanjing and committed horrific atrocities that shocked the world between December 1937 and February 1938, Hirota Koki, as the Foreign Minister of the Japanese government, should have immediately received reports from Japanese troops in Nanjing about such atrocities.

Because these criminal acts committed by the Japanese military were committed on such a wide scale and over such a long period of time, Hirota Koki himself believed that the report was credible and consulted the Japanese government's Army Ministry on the issue.

At that time, Hirota Koki received assurances from the Japanese government's Army Ministry that the atrocities committed by Japanese troops in Nanjing would stop. However, for at least a month after the Japanese government's Army Ministry made the assurance to stop the atrocities, there were still reports of atrocities committed by Japanese troops in Nanjing.

It was in this context that the International Military Tribunal for the Far East indicted Hirota Koki on count 55, namely, "intentionally or through neglect of duty failed to take adequate measures to prevent the atrocities committed by the Japanese army in the Chinese city of Nanjing."

Based on the evidence presented during the trial, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East concluded that: "According to the opinion of this Tribunal, Hirota Koki did not advocate at the cabinet meeting of the Japanese government to take immediate measures to order the Japanese troops to stop the atrocities in Nanjing, and Hirota Koki did not take any other possible measures to stop the atrocities of the Japanese troops in Nanjing. This was a dereliction of duty by Hirota Koki. Hirota Koki knew that the above-mentioned guarantee of the Japanese Army Ministry had not been implemented, and that the Japanese army was carrying out thousands of murders, rapes of women, and other atrocities in Nanjing, China every day, but Hirota Koki was satisfied with the guarantee provided by the Japanese Army Ministry. Hirota Koki's dereliction of duty has reached the level of a crime."

Therefore, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East found Hirota Koki guilty of war crimes based on the principle of commander's criminal responsibility, and sentenced him to death by hanging based on the three charges that had been confirmed to be against Hirota Koki.